Contracts · MBE-tested
HILB ROGAL AND HOBBS COMPANY ET AL. v. UTA PETERS RANDALL
293 Conn. 913·Connecticut Supreme Court·2009·CT
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HILB ROGAL AND HOBBS COMPANY ET AL. v. UTA PETERS RANDALL
The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18444.
Scott S. Centrella, in support of the petition.
The appeal was withdrawn May 12, 2010.
[MAJORITY]
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 115 Conn. App. 89 (AC 29572), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court properly supplied purported missing terms to a restrictive covenant in the subject employment agreement without resorting to the equitable remedy of reformation?”
ROGERS, C. J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
Sheila A. Huddleston, Glenn M. Cunningham and Lee A. Duval, in opposition.
Decided September 9, 2009